Talk:Fantastic Novels

I just discovered that Fantastic Novels (magazine) exists and is about this same magazine; obviously they must be merged. I'll make notes here about the additional material, and whether I'm including it in this version. I'll refer to that version as FNM, and this version as FN.

• FNM implies that the first series was cancelled because of paper shortages; I can't find a source for that other than Clareson's suggestion in Tymn/Ashley, which I've included.
• The mention of Serviss's and Pollack's novels, cited to Page, doesn't seem justified to me; Page barely mentions the magazines -- he's interested in the topic of the illustrations.
• Knight's description of Gnaedinger in FNM is a nice touch of colour. I tend to think it shouldn't be used, though, since this is an article about the magazine, not the editor. The articles on other sf magazines don't describe the editors except where their characteristics impacted their editing -- as is the case with Horace Gold at Galaxy Science Fiction, for example.
• I added a mention of Francis Stevens to FN, using Davin as a source; I don't think the specific mention of Friend Island in FNM is worth it though I could be convinced if another source gives that story importance in the field.
• The list of features is sourced directly to the magazines, which is less than ideal. I think this should be cut to a briefer description on non-fiction contents, or cut completely. I can't find any secondary sources discussing the features (though they do discuss features in other magazines).
• I've mentioned Finlay and Stevens and will go back through Ashley to see if there's more that can be added -- my recollection is Ashley is only specific about Famous Fantastic Mysteries, and doesn't talk about Fantastic Novels much.
• Most of the list of notable contributors in FNM is cited to the magazines themselves, which I don't think is good enough -- to assert they're notable we need a reliable source. I'm inclined to drop most of these; we already mention Merritt, and Lovecraft should be added.

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:45, 2 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

No comments in over a month. After reviewing this again, I'm going to add a mention of Lovecraft and leave the rest as is. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:45, 9 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:08, 9 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

A search per the method here finds no renewals. A search in the 1978+ database finds some renewals dated 1990 which are presumably invalid as the copyright expired. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:09, 9 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

Correction: the first series appears to have been renewed but I don't see evidence of the second series being renewed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 06:19, 15 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

Why is there no article for the magazine's editor, Mary Gnaedinger, one of the first female editors of science fiction?

I spent some time looking for enough sources, but couldn't find anything. If you know of sources we could use for an article please let me know. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:18, 30 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

Admittedly, there doesn't seem to be much. Googling her distinctive name finds a few useful factoids. The N.Y. Times obit is two paragraphs long. So there would be enough for a start class article, but it would be hard to get beyond that. John M Baker (talk) 15:45, 30 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

Write it!

Not really my area of interest. But if anyone wants the Times obit, I can send it on. John M Baker (talk) 19:20, 30 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

Did all the covers feature scantily-clad damsels? If so, it might be worth a mention. --Piledhigheranddeeper (talk) 15:25, 30 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

You can see them all here; most did, but not all. I think we'd need a source comment to that effect first, though. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:39, 30 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

What was the circulation? Article doesn't say.

The sources don't give it, unfortunately. After about 1962 US magazines were required to publish an annual statement of circulation, but before that date there's no way to tell unless the publisher released circulation figures. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:53, 30 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

Despite the fact that it is not a strict requirement, I'd suggest we follow the following convention: "Notes" for the explanatory material, "References" for the citations, and "Sources" for a list of the works cited. A good practice in Wikipedia is that sections should not bear confusingly similar titles: my rationale is that 'footnotes' and 'notes' are confusingly similar to each other. --Omnipaedista (talk) 11:51, 16 June 2016 (UTC)Reply
See also the discussion here. --Omnipaedista (talk) 11:53, 16 June 2016 (UTC)Reply

Replied there. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:35, 16 June 2016 (UTC)Reply